Consumers who purchased a popular brand of portable wireless power banks are seeking legal recourse after a nationwide recall was announced due to serious safety risks associated with the product’s lithium-ion batteries. The class action complaint was filed by Andrea Ayala on May 21, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against Casely, Inc.
According to the filing, the lawsuit centers on Casely Power Pods 5000mAh portable MagSafe wireless power banks, Model E33A. These devices were sold through Casely’s website and third-party retailers such as Amazon from March 2022 through September 2024 at prices ranging from $30 to $70. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced a recall after reports that the batteries could overheat, expand, catch fire, or explode—posing significant risks of fire, burn injuries, and even death.
The complaint states that consumers like Ayala had a reasonable expectation that these products would be safe for ordinary use and not present dangers to themselves or their property. Despite this expectation and Casely’s marketing claims about safety and reliability—including statements on its website describing its products as built with “cutting-edge technology” and providing “complete protection”—the devices allegedly contained a defect in their lithium-ion batteries.
On April 16, 2026, both the CPSC and Casely reannounced the recall covering approximately 429,200 units of the Model E33A power bank. This followed an initial recall in April 2025 after at least 51 consumer reports involving overheating or fires—including six minor burn injuries—were received. Since then, an additional 28 incidents have been reported to CPSC involving overheating or fire; these included one fatality and one serious incident aboard an airplane. Consumers were instructed to stop using the product immediately and follow Casely’s process for obtaining a replacement.
Ayala alleges that she purchased her device online in 2024 for $77.19 without knowledge of any defect or risk. She contends that if Casely had disclosed these risks or defects up front she would not have bought it—or would have paid less—and claims she suffered economic loss as a result of paying a price premium based on misleading representations.
The complaint outlines several causes of action including breach of express warranty; breach of implied warranty of merchantability; violations of California’s False Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law; unjust enrichment; negligent design; negligent failure to warn; and general negligence. Specifically, it is alleged that Casely’s advertising omitted warnings about battery hazards while promoting portability—even showing use inside bags or backpacks—despite later issuing updated safety instructions warning against such use.
Plaintiff further asserts that safer alternative designs were available at reasonable cost but were not implemented by Casely. These alternatives include higher-quality battery cells with better thermal management systems and clearer warning labels regarding overheating risks.
In addition to monetary damages for those who purchased affected products nationwide (and specifically within California), Ayala seeks restitution equal to the full value paid by consumers plus disgorgement of profits obtained through alleged wrongful conduct. The suit also requests injunctive relief prohibiting further deceptive practices by Casely and orders requiring improvements in recall procedures.
The complaint argues that Casely’s current remedy—requiring customers to submit photographs proving ownership and disposal before receiving store credit or replacement—is insufficient compensation given potential losses incurred by consumers who may no longer trust the company or have already discarded hazardous products.
Class certification is sought for all U.S. purchasers as well as a California subclass under Federal Rule 23 due to common questions about whether marketing was false or misleading, whether warranties were breached, whether unjust enrichment occurred, among other issues.
The case is identified as Civil Action No. 1:26-cv-03096. Attorneys Mark S. Reich and Michael N. Pollack from Levi & Korsinsky LLP represent Ayala and proposed class members.
Source: 126cv03096_Ayala_v_Casely_Inc_Complaint_Eastern_District_New_York.pdf